This news has had me depressed (seriously) since last night when I heard about it. It's disgusting and despicable. Instead of taking progressive steps, this is a giant step back. The legality or illegality of it is something that could be taken to the TDSAT. But could someone please confirm the following to me?
[*]Has Airtel confirmed that they are going to implement this speed cap thing? (Has anyone received any written conformation - e-mails or notice etc.)
[*]Is Airtel only following it, or are all/most other ISPs? (If so, which ones?)
[*]Is is mandatory or optional for the ISPs to implement the fair usage policy?
[/list]I think people here need to think of this development in principle, and not practical usage. Doesn't matter whether the cap is 25GB or 250GB. There should not be a cap when it's an unlimited plan. Just as how some time back we used to think that 32MB RAM was more than enough, and that 1.44MB floppy disks were the ultimate form of storage, one day 250GB or 1000GB might not be sufficient. So one shouldn't just look at this issue from a self-centered view point (That "40GB is enough for me, after that who cares").
The second thing I would say is that members here should not just look at it from the viewpoint of let it be implemented for future users, and not old users. Because that would mean, you would be tied in with this ISP and this plan for the rest of your life. That is to say, if you are on 512kbps unlimited from Airtel, you would never be able to change a) Airtel, b) The 512kbps plan. The minute you do, the 'fair' usage policy applies to you.
The third thing is that we need to be strong in our resolve that if this stuff is optional on Airtel's part we will collectively oppose this move. The specifics could be discussed a little later, but perhaps something in the form of a petition / legal notice, signed by all the Airtel users here on this forum (as well as any other Airtel users who wold like to join - friends, neighbours etc.). Numbers would be the key.
The fourth thing we need to be clear about is that all downloads on the internet are not of illicit material, or pirated
music / movies. There are fully legal and fully viable needs that would be stifled with these caps. Here are a few as examples, but the point I want to make is that we should be clear in our minds that while it may be portrayed as a move against piracy, it affects genuine, legitimate users as well:
#1) Video telephony - it's not a big thing now, but as the world spreads, and as businesses adopt this technology, this would become more and more common. The day will come when businesses conduct job interviews over video telephony on the internet. And to not have that capability, may turn out to be like not having an e-mail address today.
#2) Legally distributed software, music, movies - It's obvious giving the relatively low cost of distributing online, that businesses will move towards selling their software, music, movies (High Definition) over the internet. Lower costs would also translate to lower prices. Would you want to be left out when that happens?
#3) HD streaming video - People will start moving more and more towards viewing HD video on the internet - whether this is for entertainment purposes, or educational (e.g. your company has training modules online in HD), the fact remains you may need this capability one day. Would you want to waive it today because you can't predict tomorrow? Or would you rather have the option?
#4) Bandwidth heavy internet applications - we might see a day when software installed on your hard disk becomes a redundant concept, and software is more internet based (thing
Google Docs) - so not having a fast unlimited connection would be like trying to use Google Docs today on a PIII with 128MB RAM.
I could go on.... but I hope we are all on the same page.
someone has mentioned the buffet analogy before me. saw it later.
